Adjacent tiles lift after repair work. Is it malpractice?

[Mayayana]

I'm inclined to agree to a great extent with the others. You seem to be saying that the $900 job took less than one day. That's pretty steep. And why are they squirting in adhesive? What do you mean by "adhesive"? Hopefully this wasn't tile mastic on a concrete floor. And why are you walking on it the next day? There seem to be details missing. They should have stuck down the loose tiles with thinset and then grouted the next day. Thinset is generally a 2-day cure. It shouldn't have been walked on the next day except to grout, and then only carefully, with something like a sheet of plywood to spread the load.

My best guess is that your whole floor is probably going and is likely to leave you with two choices: Redo the whole thing, hopefully breaking out the old tiles first, if you can, or get your self some thinset and grout, then just re-stick tiles as they come loose. The latter solution will mean, of course, that you'll also have to accept putting in some new tiles that probably won't match.

[dgk]

Fair enough. Photos and the work map. I don't know that they did all the tiles with the X in the map. EIther they were reset, or a hole was put in the grout and adhesive was pumped in. I hope this link works for all of you and not just me.

[Ed Pawlowski]

He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them part of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is doing, but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my fault"

[John]

Number 1 likes it...

[taxed and spent]

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it is some of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

[DerbyDad03]

ract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In addition, ac cording to the OP, the contract specifically states that the contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me that it is not a warranty issue or not...

It sounded to me like the contractor did indeed add adhesive to existing ti les and I agree that that is indeed part of the new work. However, it also sounds to me that it was not any of the tiles he worked on that are the one s that subsequently popped. Had the "new work" tiles popped, then it would be a warranty issue, but if a "nearby" tile popped - with nearby tiles bein g explicitly excempted in the contract - then it's not technically a warran ty issue.

One could argue that the exception is not enforceable, but that's a contrac t issue, not a warranty issue.

[DerbyDad03]

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that it was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause that said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

[clare]

Silk purse Sow's ear Or something like that.

[clare]

The ditra is the right way to lay tile on wood substrate - actually better than cement board if done according to the instructions. Not sure there is any advantage to using it on an established concrete floor. One thing it WILL do is prevent cranks in the concrete slab from damaging the tile.(this is particularly true on a new slab which may develop cracks after the tile is installed)

[clare]

Sounds like he used an "expanding grout" and injected it under the edge of the existing tile as well as in the joint between the old tile and the new. This is almost guaranteed to pop the old tile, or crack them if they are well bonded to the slab. I;d say not too smart tile man doing the repair, POSSIBLY combined with a substandard original job (no excuse for the original tile to have come loose if done properly in the first place)

[taxed and spent]

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court. But it would be good to get to the bottom of it.

[micky]

This is a problem, but morally and legally it's not necessarily the deciding fact.

Morally, I've only read a couple replies so far, but I agree with Trader, that it sounds like you're waiving damage they do directly, and if you had ever thought that what he did would cause damage that is $500 more than the original job, you would never have agreed to let him do the job. He named the value of the job as $1400, not you.

Also look up contract of adhesion. That's what you had, a contract written by them, take it or leave it.

AIUI, contractually, you can waive negligence on the other party's part, but you can't waive gross negligence. If they used the wrong product, or applied it like no one else would do, I'll bet that is gross negligence. Both legally and morally.

Right. After he repairs them for 700, he'll do $2400 damage but be willing to repair it for 1200.

Dang.

[micky]

If it's not express, it's implied.

Of course there is a warranty and it's an issue. "Contractors must perform their work, including the selection of materials, in a workmanlike manner even when their contract does not cover this requirement, a Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District recently reaffirmed." But it's the law everywhere.

This is just one of many urls on the subject. I don't know where dg lives.

[trader_4]

ract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In addition, ac cording to the OP, the contract specifically states that the contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

I like that interpretation and agree. Additionally, especially considering the amount spent, I would have expected some warranty on the job.

[trader_4]

What they are saying is that by adjacent tiles, the contract should be interpreted to mean tiles that are OK, don't need to be worked on at all, break during any removal work, etc. Tiles that the contractor chose to inject adhesive under are not considered "adjacent", they are part of the work area.

[trader_4]

Why on earth isn't it worth pursuing with the contractor? He can still challenge his credit card payment to start and it's $900, not $25 bucks.

[trader_4]

The tiles don't match. I don't know if it's just because of the photo angle, or maybe it's slight and when you're looking at them it looks better, but from the pic, looks like a substantial difference. Likely a moot point anyway, because at this point, I'd just replace the whole thing.

[Mayayana]

| Number 1 likes it... | |

"Number 1"? I've never heard of whoever it is. Should I have?

The job I need to fix has the heated pad. The heat is poor and uneven. Tiles are coming loose. Grout is cracking. As I said before, I didn't see the job done, so I don't know whether it was done properly, but just from looking at the pad I can see that the tiles end up standing on little mortar feet. The floor as a sheet can't be very strong, given the waffle design. Yet it's floating as a sheet. And how could even a bad install have affected the heat so much? I found that when touching different areas the tiles varied from cold to room temperature on a cold day. If the wires are built in I'd expect the heating function to be almost failsafe.

With concrete board the floor becomes a single slab of mortar. I've also installed heating wires between concrete board and tile, embedded in thinset, and it worked well.

The selling points mentioned on that page are not convincing. "Even if your house shifts, your tiles won't". They're implying that a mortar bed or thinset on concrete board install will crack, which is not true. They also make a claim about being waterproof. Waterproof is a main feature of tile. It doesn't need a plastic pad underneath for that. If water gets through it's going to do so around the edges, under the basboard. A plastic waffle isn't going to help that.

I don't say that I know it to be a bad method. I'm just saying it's not time-tested. It's a private (no doubt patented) invention that logically has no selling point that I can see, and raises questions about the integrity/crack-resistance of the final slab.

My suspicion is that, like many things, it's becoming popular because it's quicker and easier than concrete board.

I imagine lots of official people will also highly recommend the new plastic plumbing hoses. They're easier than soldering copper. Will they still be holding in 20 years? There's really no way to know. I doubt that's a consideration for most plumbers. It's legal. It's easy. So they use it. There's already a problem with corrugate stainless steel flexible gas hose. Lightning strikes blow holes in it. Yet it's being used throughout houses. It's easy. It's "high-tech". The whole thing makes me curious about what kind of lobbying happens between the makers of these products and the state building commissions who approve them.

I'm wary of the constant flow of new inventions that may seem fancy and get marketed heavily, but won't necessarily stand the test of time.

[taxed and spent]

I agree with disputing his credit card statement. I was talking about going to court, sending this bozo demand letters, etc.

[dgk]

No, he did no work on the tiles that came up. He worked on the tiles right up to the ones that came up.